Creationists Go Round And Round

[HandyNZL 1]

Just this past week in NZ, there has been a tragedy. A group of high school kids (all 16) and their teacher were swept to their deaths in a flash flood during a canyoning trip - seven in total. They all went to a Christian High School.

They were trapped in the canyon and with the waters rising the decision was made to get in the water and get out again downstream where there was another outdoors instructor ready to catch them / pull them out. Unfortunately the currents were too strong and seven went over a dam further downstream and ultimately drowned.

One of the girls that survived told of how they all huddled together, and the teacher told them they could make it, that if they prayed then they will make it. There was no need to be scared. So they prayed. And got in the water and ultiamtely drowned.

Yesterday the first funeral was held. One quote that struck me was from the childs father. He said that "he (his son) must be a better man than me, for he won the race to be with the heavenly father"

Say what?!?!?!?!?!? There's a race to get to heaven?

For full reports of this tragedy just visit nzherald.co.nz - theres a story just about everyday on it.

[YHR 0]

Er, here:

As science catches up with it?

Ancient Greeks knew the world revolved around the Sun, identified many of the planets, had already developed a simple theory of evolution, had developed trigonometry, discovered electricity and magnets, understood elements of biology, worked out the circumference of the earth to within 15%, invented a steam turbine and water pump not forgetting their philosophy, poetry and other mathematical discoveries. And this was 200 - 300 years before Jesus supposedly lived and 300 - 500 years before the Bible was completed.

So he was looking for Jerusalem? That's amazing.

Good

Whatever...

The old testament is thought to have been around since 1200 BC which makes it older then "ancient greece" ( 750 years BC) Of course the current bible including the new testament is believed to have been compiled about 400 years AD, but don't forget the included books predate this as I have mentioned above.

Also there is a big difference in my claim of the Bible being a decent account of human history, and your claim that I said it presented accurate planetary history, but as you say whatever. Why let accuracy get in the way of the debate.

[Schumikonen 2]

If God told you to (in a vision), would you kill someone?

A vision is not enough for me to kill someone, I guess that would be a commamd that have reasons to disobey, I would challenge that request like Jesus did, Using the Holly Scripture which say "Killers won't inherit the kingdom of God" if god want to prove my faith there would be a better way to do it, I am completely sure that in this time God won't ask anybody to kill anyone because he is asking us to give our lives for him, like many have already done.

PS: We at church do the following, we compare anything we can get in a vision or prophecy with the bible if is not in line with that we don't take as a message from God.

[Schumikonen 2]

Are you saying these evil spirits tempt us to do wrong things? If that's the case then I don't think it is a problem: we always have temptations to do wrong things, but that doesn't stop us knowing what the right thing to do is. But perhaps you are saying something different.

Are you saying that these evil spirits can literally prevent me from knowing wrong from right, even if I do my very best to figure it out? So, for example, an evil spirit could make me genuinely think it is morally virtuous to commit genocide? This is different to just making me tempted to commit horrible crimes. Could an evil spirit make me think that 2+2=5?

If you're saying the second thing then I think we all have a huge problem. In that case, how do you know God exists? Perhaps it was just an evil spirit pretending to be God? If they can make us think 2+2=5 then they could surely pretend to be a God and appear to us in visions and perform the odd miracle to trick us.

Furthermore in this case, how do you know the Bible is the ultimate truth? Perhaps it was written or changed by evil spirits? Suppose God gave us our own consciences to guard against any changes being made to His book? Why is the Bible less likely to be changed by evil spirits than our own God-given sense of right and wrong?

There are a lot of things you need to know about thoses evil spirits innorder for you to understand what can and what can't they do.

Thoses spirits can live in or outside people but they can not get into everybody just because they want, there are rules in the spiritual world that they have to follow, thoses spirit can go from a father to a son in the chain is not broken the can go on like that for several generations.

Other can get into people by sexual relations, bible says that people becomes one by sexual contact and the meanning of that they become one spiritually speaking so thoses spirits can affect both of them at the same time in the same way kids are under parent's spiritual protection with means that is the father is saved so is the child.

Thoses spirits can affect people in different ways being the worse when they live inside the person in that condition they can take full control of that person, they can talk, move and do anything they want with them.

Another thing they can do is what we call "thought proyections" they can put a thought in your mind and make you believe you are thinking that or that this thought came from you but they can not read anybody's mind.

And yes you are right they disguise themselves as Angels, "Saints," God, dead people and many other things all of thoses "saints" you see in pictures have a demon representing that picture, I know a lot about that because my mother was involved in that and they even used my house for their rituals, I grew up seeing thoses people under demon influence and saw things that you wouldn't believe it like and friend of mine how was talking about a "female saint" which in realitiy a demon of lust, he was talking about that spirit in a place there was no way they could hear conversation and he said "I want Anaisa to come because she likes to have sex..." and while he was talking a person having that demon came and told him "You wanted me to come, here I am, what do you want with me?" he was so scare that he didn't said or do anything.

Thoses spirits created if not all almost every religion in the world, they can make you sick, they can change they way you see thing, they don't get tired, they don't sleep, they don't die, they will work with you until they get you right were they want.

They can not call Jesus lord or say that he is God who came in flesh and that is one of the way to test the spirits, the bible commamd us to test spirits this way.

the most important thing about this spirits is that they were defeated by Jesus and they have to obey when they get an order in the name of Jesus, most of the time they will refuse to obey that is just a way to try to stay doing whatever they were doing and a way to make you think you don't have enough authority to deal with them, they are very smart and they will try to discourage you so you don't bother them anymore.

I guess is better for you read a book about this so you can have a better understanding about this, I don't want to finish without saying that usually satanic cults end in orgy because this is the better way to have thoses spirits affecting as many people as possible and is not just because they are depraved people, this is long, long topic and is almost impossible to explain everything about in this little time.

I almost forgot to say this about them, they can make themsleves visible when they want and they usually apear like dead people or anything they want, sometimes they apear like they really are when the final purpose is to scare someone to make that person stop from doing something.

[Kati 0]

i didnt read it but considering the size of the post, you must be right.

[Schumikonen 2]

1

There is a logical problem with your argument here Schumikonen. Let's take the situation where you say: " I have the rule that tells me to go 65 [but] i know I can drive safely at 90". Well, can't you see the problem here? If you know you can drive safely at 90mph, then what good is the rule? If you really can drive safely at that speed then the rule is pointless and not protecting anyone. If on the other hand you are tempted to drive at 90mph when you know that it would be a little bit dangerous, then deep down you know the right speed to drive at already.

Also, I'm not arguing against rules. I support having a speed limit. But the laws and rules we follow must make sense to us, and must not contradict our own God-given sense of right and wrong.

I've found info and I've read even in this forum that many of thoses speed limits are outdate and I don't think the maximun safe speed limit for a truck is the same maximum safe speed limit for a car, definitelly is not the same, but we all have a 65 limit no matter what you are driving.

About how good is the rule I guess is the same problem for everybody, i don't agree with thoses speed limit by i agree with the stops rules, I stop at every sign and i don't like when I see people not stoping, that is dangerous, when you "think" that a certain rule is good then you obey that rule but how good is I don't really know, maybe that speed limit is there so police can give more tickets and not really because of a safety concern, you have faster highways in Europe and everything is working ok there, i sometimes notice that my speed is well above the speed limit and slow down, I notice this because I see my velocimeter and not because I feel or notice the danger around, probably I am missing you point but I don't see the problem.

[Schumikonen 2]

i didnt read it but considering the size of the post, you must be right.

I think I am

Now i have to take my second flying lesson in FSX

I'll be back, like Kimi.

[Max Mosley 2]

A vision is not enough for me to kill someone, I guess that would be a commamd that have reasons to disobey, I would challenge that request like Jesus did, Using the Holly Scripture which say "Killers won't inherit the kingdom of God" if god want to prove my faith there would be a better way to do it, I am completely sure that in this time God won't ask anybody to kill anyone because he is asking us to give our lives for him, like many have already done.

PS: We at church do the following, we compare anything we can get in a vision or prophecy with the bible if is not in line with that we don't take as a message from God.

Cheers. But what if it said in the Bible to kill someone? I know it probably doesn't, but what if it did, hypothetically speaking? What if scholars realised they mistranslated a word, and the corrected meaning was that we had to kill someone? Would you do it if you were sure this was the correct meaning?

There are a lot of things you need to know about thoses evil spirits innorder for you to understand what can and what can't they do.

Thanks for the info. But how do you know all this? Maybe the spirits have altered the Bible? If they can make me think wrong is right, and 2+2=5, then they can surely alter a book.

You will probably reply that it says in the Bible that the Bible can not be affected by the spirits. But maybe the spirits just made the Bible say that? Perhaps it only says that because the evil spirits inserted that message in the Bible in order to confuse you? Or perhaps they fooled the translators into thinking it was there all along?

Perhaps God gave us our own consciences so that we wouldn't be fooled by these evil spirits' alterations to the Bible?

[Schumikonen 2]

Cheers. But what if it said in the Bible to kill someone? I know it probably doesn't, but what if it did, hypothetically speaking? What if scholars realised they mistranslated a word, and the corrected meaning was that we had to kill someone? Would you do it if you were sure this was the correct meaning?

Thanks for the info. But how do you know all this? Maybe the spirits have altered the Bible? If they can make me think wrong is right, and 2+2=5, then they can surely alter a book.

You will probably reply that it says in the Bible that the Bible can not be affected by the spirits. But maybe the spirits just made the Bible say that? Perhaps it only says that because the evil spirits inserted that message in the Bible in order to confuse you? Or perhaps they fooled the translators into thinking it was there all along?

Perhaps God gave us our own consciences so that we wouldn't be fooled by these evil spirits' alterations to the Bible?

Hypothetically speaking we can do many things but we need most of the bible to be changed to accept we must kill someone, Jesus came so we can have life and have it abundantly, he refused to kill a person who according to the law had to be kill, the bible teach that he die for us to set us free, so we don't have to kill anyone, the bible also says that God is the one who will fight for you and He will take revenge for you, the bible tells us not to resist the people, to put the other chick if we get hit and many, many things like that and that all will have to be change to get to that point. But to kill someone we don't need God to tell us to do so, militay people kill people and that is not consider a murder according to the bible, thoses people are protecting a country and following orders, personally I would love to be in the Air Force flying a F-22 Raptor or something like that, if I was a the Air Force I would have to do my job and that may be including killing people there are many christians in the armed forces all around the world, the have a job to do and they will do it even if they don't like it, I guess they are praying so they don't have to get to that point.

About the spirits Jesus was accused of using Satan's power to cast out demons and he said "Any house divided would not prevail, if Satan is against Satan how can he last" meaning that only thoses who are against Satan can fight against him, If we cast out demons in the name of Jesus that means we are against them and i don't think they will give us the way to get the rid of them, that's why I trust the bible in that point, I've seen that working.

Yes tehy can alter the bible the thing is that on the other side of thoses evil spirits we have the Holly Spirit doing his job, there have been many altarations to the bible but they have been found, there are religions who have changed the bible to make it fit to their teachings and doctrines, most of thoses are for sale because they just release it to the people who can not challenge them, check at the tools I have to study the bible in this link http://www.logos.com/demo

[Max Mosley 2]

I don't mean to argue too much Schumikonen. Perhaps I'm too argumentative. I like you a lot, I just think that all the problems from religion arise when people trust a book or preacher without trusting their own conscience.

Hypothetically speaking we can do many things but we need most of the bible to be changed to accept we must kill someone, Jesus came so we can have life and have it abundantly, he refused to kill a person who according to the law had to be kill, the bible teach that he die for us to set us free, so we don't have to kill anyone, the bible also says that God is the one who will fight for you and He will take revenge for you, the bible tells us not to resist the people, to put the other chick if we get hit and many, many things like that and that all will have to be change to get to that point. But to kill someone we don't need God to tell us to do so, militay people kill people and that is not consider a murder according to the bible, thoses people are protecting a country and following orders, personally I would love to be in the Air Force flying a F-22 Raptor or something like that, if I was a the Air Force I would have to do my job and that may be including killing people there are many christians in the armed forces all around the world, the have a job to do and they will do it even if they don't like it, I guess they are praying so they don't have to get to that point.

Yes the Bible would have a totally different meaning. All I am trying to get at is the following though. Would you do something that went against your own conscience for religious reasons? What is the most important such thing that you do or would do?

About the spirits Jesus was accused of using Satan's power to cast out demons and he said "Any house divided would not prevail, if Satan is against Satan how can he last" meaning that only thoses who are against Satan can fight against him, If we cast out demons in the name of Jesus that means we are against them and i don't think they will give us the way to get the rid of them, that's why I trust the bible in that point, I've seen that working.

But perhaps the spirits just make you think that? Jesus's saying could have been inserted by the spirits, and whatever you saw could be an illusion created by the spirits. What do you think of this video? (Follow the links to part 2.)

Yes tehy can alter the bible the thing is that on the other side of thoses evil spirits we have the Holly Spirit doing his job, there have been many altarations to the bible but they have been found, there are religions who have changed the bible to make it fit to their teachings and doctrines, most of thoses are for sale because they just release it to the people who can not challenge them, check at the tools I have to study the bible in this link http://www.logos.com/demo

We have only found the errors that we know about. Many, in fact most, scholars say that we can't be sure that we know what the original books said.

[Schumikonen 2]

We have only found the errors that we know about. Many, in fact most, scholars say that we can't be sure that we know what the original books said.

We trust as much in the bible as you do with science, and bible have been more consistent than science, I don't mean that science can not be trusted, I know scientist do the best they can and that they are working hard to do get the best for the knowledge and tools they have, that is the case we us with the bible we try to do the best with the tools we have and science is helping us a lot with finding like the Dead Sea Scrolls and many like that so I feel like science and us are at the same point in this matter because science can not be sure about many things they believe and many of the things they teach are really theories or things that still need to be proben.

[Schumikonen 2]

But perhaps the spirits just make you think that? Jesus's saying could have been inserted by the spirits, and whatever you saw could be an illusion created by the spirits. What do you think of this video? (Follow the links to part 2.)

That's a very interesting video, my explanations to that video ar the following knowing that I wasn't there and i don't know the people in the video.

The fisrt thing is this, no people can convert another our mission is to talk about Jesus and the Holly Spirit is the one who touch people to come to Jesus, no matter what i say if the Holly Spirit don't back my words you can be convinced but not converted which is not the same, there are many people in christianity learning how to preprare messages adn how to talk to the public that is called homiletic, that is against the bible Jesus took people from the lowest amont the ones available at that time to change to the world and the people who have some level of understanding was surprise to see how they were talking.

God could used anyone believer or not to do his work, the bible talks about a prophet who was paid to curse Israel and that prophet went to do that but instead of that he blessed Israel he couldn't speak and single cursing word against Israel even when that is what he wanted to do, so I am not surprised to see this.

What surprised me about this video is that when this "preacher" pulled the man out being behind him he felt back without seeing what this "preacher" was doing, they could be acting or something happened at that point that I would like science explaining it if that was in fact not an act. I don't know what do you believe about it but I would like to hear from you in this case.

[cavallino 2]

The old testament is thought to have been around since 1200 BC which makes it older then "ancient greece" ( 750 years BC) Of course the current bible including the new testament is believed to have been compiled about 400 years AD, but don't forget the included books predate this as I have mentioned above.

Also there is a big difference in my claim of the Bible being a decent account of human history, and your claim that I said it presented accurate planetary history, but as you say whatever. Why let accuracy get in the way of the debate.

Is it just me or did you change that post which was originally a reply to my psot to a reply to someone else's.

I didn't really get a reply..

And I think you're misrepresenting other people's views, whatyou said is:

I did say don't be surprised to find how much it has got right as human science catches up to it. For an old manuscript written before the human race even knew the world was was round, I find some of the info pretty amazing.

Now come on, that deserves more of a justification. From all I can see, the bible hadn't even 'caught up' to the science of the very period it was written, forget science catching up to it now. And claiming that it got some things right is meaning when it got plenty more wrong. Even then, if, like other works of the period, it made an attempt to give the reasoning behind those statements that it did get right, I would be be less inclined to dismiss it as mere conjecture.

I don't think you have, or even tried to demonstrate why the bible is a more important scientific works than other works of that period. You can begin by answering the question I asked in my post.

[cavallino 2]

The Old testament Jobe 40: 15-19 (2000 years BC) talks of Behemoth's that walked the earth with a tail the size of cedars. So even if we say the Bible was thrown together by a bunch of folks who were drinking to much wine 800 years ago, they still wrote of something that we had no physical evidence of until hundreds of years later.

The world being round, and the infinite expansion of space is documented in the bible thousands of years before science proved it to be true.

I am afraid you're showing your limited understanding of science, and more than that your unwillingness to find out there. Do you, for example know how easy it is to prove that the earth is round, by doing very simple experiments, or even through simple observations?

I mean come on, you sound like the people selectively quoting Nostradamus after 9/11. You can surely do better than taking a few words which are sort of right, when much else is completely wrong?

Higher education and Universities all have roots to the Christian Church.

Hogwash. Complete and utter hogwash. The two things I can think of off the top of my head, the university at Nalanda and the library of Alexandria had nothing to do with the church. Please please at least justify your opinion when you throw a statement like that.

As a matter of fact if you are keeping tab science has probably proven more truths in the Bible then it has disproved. Archeologist have actually used bible verse to lead to actual discoveries to put a real touch of reality on it.

I need more on this. Too many big statements with no justification. I don't like being preached to.

Liberal western culture has its roots firmly entrenched in Christian beliefs. Our laws and social fabric are based on Christian values. Race equality, equal status for women, social program for the poor.

That's just preposterous. Why have these values only gained acceptance only in the past 100 years or so, coinciding with the decline of the influence of churches? What happened in the 1900 years when people had christian beliefs more firmly entrenched than they do now? Why did it take so long for equality for women to be on the agenda, why did it take till the 20th century for them to be able to vote? Why is it that in that liberal western culture, even today peopl holding back things like gay rights and contraception claim to be motivated by christianity or other religions?

People call this "human conscience", but if it was a true inherent human conscience then why do we not see these values exibited world wide.????

We don't? Really? Have you for example read of the influences behind the American civil rights movement and the anti apartheid movement in the United States?

I think you demonstrate very poor scholarship with your sweeping statements and supercilious assertions.

[cavallino 2]

I wish I had the time to repy in more detail, I hope someone can help me out

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I am afraid you're showing your limited understanding of science, and more than that your unwillingness to find out there.

How about showing more of an interest and understanding of religion...

[Ash1 0]

Thanks to the theory of evolution, naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society. Charles Darwin popularized the credo for this secular religion with his book The Origin of Species. Although most of Darwin's theories about the mechanisms of evolution were discarded long ago, the doctrine of evolution itself has managed to achieve the status of a fundamental article of faith in the popular modern mind. Naturalism has now replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western world, and evolution has become naturalism's principal dogma.

Naturalism is the view that every law and every force operating in the universe is natural rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural. Naturalism is inherently anti-theistic, rejecting the very concept of a personal God. Many assume naturalism therefore has nothing to do with religion. In fact, it is a common misconception that naturalism embodies the very essence of scientific objectivity. Naturalists themselves like to portray their system as a philosophy that stands in opposition to all faith-based world-views, pretending that it is scientifically and intellectually superior precisely because of its supposed non-religious character.

Not so. Religion is exactly the right word to describe naturalism. The entire philosophy is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition--an a priori rejection of everything supernatural--requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all its supporting theories must be taken by faith as well.

Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it "scientific" in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more "scientific" than any other kind of religious faith.

Michael Ruse is an evolutionist who testified in the 1980s at the infamous Arkansas creationism trial (McLean v. Arkansas). During the trial, he claimed that creationism is a religion because it is grounded in unproven philosophical assumptions. But Darwinism is a science, he said, because it requires no philosophical or religious presuppositions. Ruse has since admitted that he was wrong, and he now acknowledges that evolution "is metaphysically based"--grounded in unproven beliefs that are no more "scientific" than the set of beliefs on which creationism is based. See Tom Woodward, "Ruse Gives Away the Store: Admits Evolution Is a Philosophy" on the "Origins" Web site.

[Schumikonen 2]

How about showing more of an interest and understanding of religion...

[cavallino 2]

How about showing more of an interest and understanding of religion...

Sure, help me out here. I am interesting in knowing the basis of the claims that

1) The bible contains substantial, specific scientific information that science is only now 'catching up to'.

2) That christian ethos form the basis and have directly led to the currently accepted philosophies and principles of racial equality, humanism, liberalism etc.

Let's start here shall we.

[cavallino 2]

I think we can all copy and paste, that isn't the point however.

[Quiet One 15]

Thanks to the theory of evolution, naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society. Charles Darwin popularized the credo for this secular religion with his book The Origin of Species. Although most of Darwin's theories about the mechanisms of evolution were discarded long ago, the doctrine of evolution itself has managed to achieve the status of a fundamental article of faith in the popular modern mind. Naturalism has now replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western world, and evolution has become naturalism's principal dogma.

Naturalism is the view that every law and every force operating in the universe is natural rather than moral, spiritual, or supernatural. Naturalism is inherently anti-theistic, rejecting the very concept of a personal God. Many assume naturalism therefore has nothing to do with religion. In fact, it is a common misconception that naturalism embodies the very essence of scientific objectivity. Naturalists themselves like to portray their system as a philosophy that stands in opposition to all faith-based world-views, pretending that it is scientifically and intellectually superior precisely because of its supposed non-religious character.

Not so. Religion is exactly the right word to describe naturalism. The entire philosophy is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition--an a priori rejection of everything supernatural--requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all its supporting theories must be taken by faith as well.

Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it "scientific" in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more "scientific" than any other kind of religious faith.

Michael Ruse is an evolutionist who testified in the 1980s at the infamous Arkansas creationism trial (McLean v. Arkansas). During the trial, he claimed that creationism is a religion because it is grounded in unproven philosophical assumptions. But Darwinism is a science, he said, because it requires no philosophical or religious presuppositions. Ruse has since admitted that he was wrong, and he now acknowledges that evolution "is metaphysically based"--grounded in unproven beliefs that are no more "scientific" than the set of beliefs on which creationism is based. See Tom Woodward, "Ruse Gives Away the Store: Admits Evolution Is a Philosophy" on the "Origins" Web site.

Thank you, that was the best argument supporting evolutionism sice this thread has started. The utter ignorance of what constitutes a scientiific theory, what constitutes scientific evidence and even what constitutes something as basic as reasoning perspires in every word of that article (I guess it is an article, right?)

[cavallino 2]

Thank you, that was the best argument supporting evolutionism sice this thread has started. The utter ignorance of what constitutes a scientiific theory, what constitutes scientific evidence and even what constitutes something as basic as reasoning perspires in every word of that article (I guess it is an article, right?)

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Sure, help me out here. I am interesting in knowing the basis of the claims that

1) The bible contains substantial, specific scientific information that science is only now 'catching up to'.

2) That christian ethos form the basis and have directly led to the currently accepted philosophies and principles of racial equality, humanism, liberalism etc.

Let's start here shall we.

ets REALLY not GO THERE Cav...really!!!

[cavallino 2]

ets REALLY not GO THERE Cav...really!!!

[Max Mosley 2]

We trust as much in the bible as you do with science, and bible have been more consistent than science, I don't mean that science can not be trusted, I know scientist do the best they can and that they are working hard to do get the best for the knowledge and tools they have, that is the case we us with the bible we try to do the best with the tools we have and science is helping us a lot with finding like the Dead Sea Scrolls and many like that so I feel like science and us are at the same point in this matter because science can not be sure about many things they believe and many of the things they teach are really theories or things that still need to be proben.

It's not really true, Schumikonen. You trust in the Bible far more than I trust in science. My trust in science is no greater than your own, I suspect. When you get ill presumably you go to a (scientific) doctor, right? You're using a (scientific) computer to talk to me, right? You trust that your car brakes will work because science says they almost certainly will, right? You trust the food you get in the supermarket as long as you cook it the way science tells us to because it's then safe to eat, as opposed to raw poultry for example, right? I don't trust in science any more than that. My morals are nothing to do with science. The meaning of life has nothing to do with science. That is a separate issue

My morals come from looking within myself and choosing what I think is right in any given situation. I am open to the idea that God exists, and if He does exist then I think He gave us our consciences so He will be pleased if we use them to the best of our ability.

However it seems that your morals come from a book. I don't think God will approve of doing things that you think and feel are wrong just because it says to in a book. I'd still like to know exactly what moral guidance the Bible offers you that contradicts your own conscience. Can you give me an example, preferably a controversial one? Are you in favour of something most atheists are not, purely because of your religious beliefs?

That's a very interesting video, my explanations to that video ar the following knowing that I wasn't there and i don't know the people in the video.

The fisrt thing is this, no people can convert another our mission is to talk about Jesus and the Holly Spirit is the one who touch people to come to Jesus, no matter what i say if the Holly Spirit don't back my words you can be convinced but not converted which is not the same, there are many people in christianity learning how to preprare messages adn how to talk to the public that is called homiletic, that is against the bible Jesus took people from the lowest amont the ones available at that time to change to the world and the people who have some level of understanding was surprise to see how they were talking.

God could used anyone believer or not to do his work, the bible talks about a prophet who was paid to curse Israel and that prophet went to do that but instead of that he blessed Israel he couldn't speak and single cursing word against Israel even when that is what he wanted to do, so I am not surprised to see this.

What surprised me about this video is that when this "preacher" pulled the man out being behind him he felt back without seeing what this "preacher" was doing, they could be acting or something happened at that point that I would like science explaining it if that was in fact not an act. I don't know what do you believe about it but I would like to hear from you in this case.

Well the reason I showed you that video was because it shows how easy it is to fool people into having religious experiences. There are many so-called "conversions" that happen in Churches that are just like what Derren Brown did in the video. You can't trust them. Same with miracles. Any good magician can make weird things happen in front of you, especially with volunteers who want it to be true.

As for how it works, Derren Brown just used hypnotic methods and suggestions to get the people to do and feel what he wanted. So with the guy that he 'pulled' backwards, first he put the guy in a suggestible state, then he said things like "don't worry, this won't hurt" and "don't worry, I'll catch you" so the guy knew subconsciously what was going to happen, then just when the guy was about to fall over all by himself Derren Brown pretends to pull him backwards. It's a very effective trick, but it's no more than that. Btw there are videos on youtube explaining how he does these weird things - they're fun to watch.

I think you demonstrate very poor scholarship with your sweeping statements and supercilious assertions.

Yes. It's no wonder some Christians don't get taken seriously when they don't do their research, but Ash is in another league altogether. The mind boggles at his sheer ingorance. How has he managed to evade common sense for so long? Honestly, the scale of his achievement makes me wonder what he could manage if he ever learns to think.